The Ongoing NETTR Discussion: Agency and Authority
We live in tumultuous, troubled times. They are breaking down the old stories we used to use to understand ourselves and the world around us. New discourses are emerging. NETTER is one such.
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” Matthew 13:52
I heard it said once that you don’t know what you think until you speak it out loud or take the time to write it down. I find for me, this is very much true. We are living in a tumultuous time where old orthodoxies, the common wisdom, and even regime propaganda are beginning to break down. Cracks are showing in the various narratives used to explain and understand the world in which we live. The accepted set of solutions are no longer producing the results they once used to, and in many instances can be seen to be making things worse.
Unfortunately, good answers often never emerge fully formed. Sometimes you just have to start speaking. Then, once spoken, it is out there and you can see and hear what was said. Does it resonate? Is there harmony? Or, is there still discordant notes, things that don’t quite line up? My last piece — “Towards a Theology of NETTR” — was a struggle to get out. At times it was like wrestling with mist, wanting to say something, sensing it needed to be said, but then, 8,500 words later, felt like it was not quite finished, not quite right. A fellow member of out Christian Ghetto discussion group,
, wrote a thoughtful reply, one, which, if you have not read it, you should take a moment and do so:
The funny thing was, after reading his response, I didn’t really disagree. Nor did I really think that I had missed the mark. What was I missing? What was I not seeing? Then it hit me. I realized that the thing I was arguing was not really the argument that I wanted to make when I started out.
I realized that I had fallen into a trap. We sometimes forget that we really are enframed in a world defined by managerialism and technique. It is so ubiquitous, that sometimes we don’t even catch ourselves when we start thinking like managers. I think this is what I did, and it tripped me up. This is why reacting to your opponents can get you into trouble. Many who take unto themselves the label “conservative” seem to police the right as a matter of policy. They do so for numerous reasons, some of which we talked about in the previous piece. When I first heard the phrase “no enemies to the right” it had a power to it. It said very clearly, “We will not do the regime’s work for it by throwing our own onto the pyre.” This is what Johann communicated so well in his piece by suggesting that instead of “no enemies to the right” that we practice, “no feeding the left.” In hearing that, I don’t disagree. But then I realized what I think we were both trying to do: establish a policy framework for not handing the left, the regime, easy victories by doing their work of personal destruction for them.
As I thought about my piece and Johann’s together, I realized that what I wanted to argue, what I should have argued, what I tried to argue, is that what we need is a not a new and better set of policies with which to fight the left. If you battle technique based managerialism with better “based” techniques, “based” managerialism, you are not actually battling the system, you are reinforcing it.
What we need is a new type of leader. “No enemies to the right” or “no feeding the left” should be a set of tactics employed as needed, when needed and not put in place as the basis for a policy prescription. This is what I was arguing through the last portion of the piece: not so much a theology of NETTR per se, but a theological foundation for the kinds of leaders who will not foolishly throw their own under the bus. Wise, godly leaders will be men capable of doing hard things when they need to do them. That means sometimes protecting disagreeable, foolish and unsavory people, who, in more settled times, might demand a completely different response from the same wise, godly leader. I had to laugh at myself because I spend so much time pointing out the nature and effects of technique, its strengths and dangers and yet I missed catching myself falling into the managerial trap of treating NETTR like a policy rather that what it should be: a tool, a tactic, a strategy. It is available when necessary, but by no means need be established as the one single way for us to deal with our own radicals.
So what are we looking for? As I said, we are looking for a different kind of leader. We need men of authority, not managers and experts. It has become abundantly clear over the last few years that we are experiencing a crisis in authority. We hunger for men of the exception who are capable of remaking the world around them, who can call forth the “miracle of law.” We need men of wisdom. Men of tactics and strategy. Not men of policy and procedure. I read somewhere a while back, I wish I could remember the source, a piece which made the observation that for all of America’s inventiveness, its industrial and economic successes, that it has not really produced any history defining military tacticians. The author of this piece cited one general who should qualify, but he is often passed over because he was on the losing side of the Civil War: General Robert E. Lee.
The article asked why has America not produced great tactical generals? In part, the answer was that the industrial society into which America was transforming was shaped around the bourgeoisie and their managerial skills. This affects the way that they are taught and trained. Managers have proven themselves quite adept at building a global empire. Managerialism demands managers. We define “leadership” largely in managerial terms today. Managers write, implement and follow policy. They grind you down one policy at time until you conform and allow yourself to be shaped by the system. They don’t win battles with tactical verve, creative flair and competency. They don’t win by force of character and personal genius. Managers win by harnessing resources, consistency, setting a high floor, and by developing reliable, complex systems. They manage logistics, supply chains. Command and control. All the components of warfare on an industrial scale.
This seems to be the dividing line: on one side there is the power of system and on the other side there is the power of personal authority. We have been sold on the necessity of system because it raises the floor and produces consistent, efficient results at a relatively high level. But managerial systems also lower the ceiling. They guard against, and even smother the free wheeling, free thinking, man of action who does things by the force of his character. We guard against persons, the lows; but we also guard against the highs by means of our systems. NETTR has the potential to become an inflexible managerial policy prescription that would in the end undermine our resistance just as much as those who throw right wing radicals to the regime wolves as a matter of policy. But in the right hands, as a tactic, executed in the right way at the right time, it has the potential to rob the left of the power of the ratchet.
So, this begs the question, what do I mean by a person of “authority?”
Let’s unpack this some philosophically and theologically. Italian philosopher Augusto del Noce argued that typically today, when we think of the word “authority” our culture tends to make associations with “authoritarian.” Authority carries with it the idea of those things, persons and structures which prevents us from being free to reach our full potential. Authority is a form of repression, blocking those things that prevent us from achieving proper growth. But, del Noce argues, this is actually an inversion of the older sense of the word. Going back to its Latin roots, the etymological source of “authority” is auctorus which is derived from augere, “to make grow.” Del Noce argues that the idea of “the authority” was the person able to help you achieve your true purpose, your telos, to fulfill your proper end, to give proper expression to the the hierarchy of being within your life. We see remnants of this older meaning when we talk about someone being an “authority” on a subject.
Traditionally, the idea was rooted in the family, in that the parents would hand down the traditions passed on to them so as to grow up and raise up children within this context. Tradition was seen a vital source for helping a child realize the fullness of their place in the hierarchy of being, to achieve their proper end, the telos for which they has been created. Today, by contrast, tradition is seen as a repository of “backwards” ideas which inhibit the child’s self-realization. In this sense, the crisis of authority is also a crisis of tradition. But in the older sense, tradition was a thing which was grounded in and found its source in the presence of the transcendent. Authority flowed out of one’s relationship to a metaphysical reality, the hierarchy of being, as instantiated in the received teachings and traditions of the community.
This was not an abstract construction. It was rooted in a real relationship to a world which was saturated in meaning, in which the archetypes presented themselves everywhere. You realized the fullness of who you were by living into the archetypes. These archetypes, as they presented themselves in signs, symbols and stories were the visible manifestation of a Divine Order, which was itself an expression of the Divine Being. The authority of man flowed out of the authority of God. Thus the presence of the father in the family was, in archetypal form, the expression of the Divine Father. “Authority” in the older sense can only be sustained in the real presence of the transcendent in the lives of the people. One must have a living connection with the supernatural, transcendent God in which the whole telos of man’s life is grounded.
Flip forward to the bourgeois attitude and frame of reference. Bourgeois man lives in a world of “a-religious individualism,” centered on the idea of “happiness” which has become dominant since the 1700’s. This modern, enlightenment understanding of happiness is different from the older idea of a beatitude, which implied a correct relationship to the hierarchy of being, to Being. Happiness embraces the idea of utility over value. A thing is not to be measured by its place in the hierarchy of being, but rather by its usefulness, especially its usefulness for producing happiness. If it is useful, it is good. In this disposition, there can be no Truth, no Good. Utility rules out the possibility of absolutes.
Religion fits into this schema. Is religion useful to me? Then it is good. Does religion contribute to my happiness? Then it is good. For the modern man he desires order and progress, that is, an orderly movement towards towards happiness. But to achieve this, order and progress had to be shorn from metaphysics. Metaphysics implied an organization of life around the hierarchy of being centered in the Divine Presence in all things, subordinating all things to this order. Utility implied that reality could be defined now in practical terms, centered on human beings and their perceived happiness, in terms of progress: progress in knowledge, technology and economics freed from the restraints of metaphysical limits.
But in so freeing himself, man could no longer could “ground” Truth or Morality in the metaphysical, in the real Divine Presence of God. The attempt would be made to ground Truth in reason. Also, metaphysical questions would be set aside. We would examine all things free from the prejudices of tradition, the supernatural, the transcendent and the metaphysical. Sure knowledge would be based on what could be observed, measured, and tested. Science. We would set aside the question of “why?” or “should?” to embrace the practical question of “does it work?”, “is it repeatable?”, and “does it make me happy?” Sound methodology would give us a sure foundation for knowledge.
No longer would we be ruled by the person of the king as the symbol of the Divine law giver. We would instead be governed by the “rule of law.” We would develop a closed system of rationality, as embodied in the idea of the constitutional republic. All men equally would bend their knee to the system of law. All men would stand equally before the law. Modern managerialism has its roots in this transformation. Managerial systems, technical management, has as its philosophical basis in the desire to replace the variability of persons with the consistency of the system. There is only a few short steps from living under the constraints of the constitutional system of law to living under the prescriptions of the policy manual. Saying that here in America we are all subject to the rule of law is not that much different to saying that here at XYZ Tech we are all to follow the clear policies of equity and inclusion. The ascendency of managerialism has been driven by its practical success. Technique allows power and money to be accumulated and managed at a scale which is frankly quite amazing. But there is a trade off. This power comes with a loss of “authority” in the older sense.
Again, this idea, that we are governed by the “rule of law,” lays the groundwork for the whole policy apparatus of the system of the technical administrative state. While the rule of law in its mature form is tremendously powerful, it passes off responsibility from persons to the system. We have to acknowledge that the reason this idea gained ascendency was that persons are highly variable. They vary in skill and ability. They vary greatly in their virtue and morality. This idea of the rule of law, and with it the policy manual, shift agency from the person to the system. This does have its benefits. It raises the floor for your results. It is efficient. It produces consistent results. But it also stifles and inhibits greatness. If people rise to greatness, it is often in spite of the system. But what it really does is create a crisis of agency and responsibility.
If decisions are always dictated by policies produced behind the scenes by committees of experts, then no one person is ever responsible for anything. But if no one person is responsible for anything, no one can be blamed when things go wrong. Mistakes just become further data points for the committees of experts to go back to work to refine the system. No one dares to defy the system and act independently because to do so would be to make one’s self a target for blame and responsibility. The best, safest, course would be to conform yourself to the system and operate within its confines. But as we pass off responsibility to the system, this creates a crisis in authority. All problems in science and knowledge become problems of methodology. All problems of management become problems of planning, systems and policy.
So what is the alternative to the rule of law/policy and the managerial system? We live within an empire of technique that is in its end game. The logic of the technical system and its orientation towards progress wants to find the all encompassing integrated system for everything. Every scenario is accounted for in the algorithms. Every situation has a predetermined best practice. It is powerful, but becoming ever more rigid and fragile, ever more reliant upon harder forms of coercion. There really are no new ideas. Its policy all the way down. So what is the alternative? It is to trust persons. Persons of authority.
This is the essential point made by Carl Schmitt in Political Theology. What will we do when there is a crisis for which the system has no answer? Where do the answers come from? They come from the place they have always come, from the “miracle of law.” The idea of the “miracle of law” is that in the moment, the king, the ruler, becomes the manifestation of the Divine Lawgiver. The king becomes the embodiment of Wisdom. Technical systems want to take that role and put it into the policy manual itself. But there is always some situation which cannot be accounted for in the algorithm, in the policies, in the law. What I am getting at is something exemplified by Jesus when it was said of him in Matthew 7:29:
“because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law”
To put this into modern terms we might says that Jesus is not someone who specializes in managing and applying policy. When Jesus speaks, it has a “thus says the Lord,” quality. This is what Schmitt was trying to capture with the idea of the “miracle of law.” The person of authority is able to act in this kind of manner, that, when rightly ordered, their actions carry with them some special quality that is otherworldly, Divine in origin. This is the idea of being “anointed” to be king. If done rightly, it imparts a Divine blessing upon the leader. We see this archetype at work in the anointing of David in 1 Samuel 16:
16 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
2 But Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me.”
The Lord said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”
4 Samuel did what the Lord said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, “Do you come in peace?”
5 Samuel replied, “Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me.” Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.
6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.”
7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
8 Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The Lord has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the Lord chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The Lord has not chosen these.” 11 So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
12 So he sent for him and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features.
Then the Lord said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.”
13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
What is interesting is that Samuel right away saw the political implications of what God was asking him to do. It is true that God had withdrawn his anointing of Saul —something all leaders should take deeply to heart— but the act of anointing David by Samuel would be seen as an act of revolt against the king, so it was done under the pretense of making a sacrifice to God. But through the act of the anointing, the Spirit of the Lord was upon David.
Luke 9:1-2 shows a similar dynamic:
9 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
When one has the anointing of God and has the trust of God to act, one is able to make decisions using one’s wisdom. In this sense, we see the “miracle of law” at work when Paul makes a pronouncement in regards to virgins in 1 Corinthians 7:25:
“I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.”
In properly ordered leadership, when men have the anointing of God, they can make such pronouncements. They can also do hard things, confidently. I encourage you to read what Josiah did in 2 Kings 23.
We are very uncomfortable with these ideas today. Following the Protestant Reformation we have tended to push aside “superstition.” We have leaned into the idea of the closed canon and the methodological interpretation of scripture to guard against the idea of false prophets and false anointing. Culturally, we have guarded against power invested in persons by setting up legal and institutional controls intended to prevent such abuses of personal power. In many ways we have replaced the power of God with the power of technique.
What is our faith based on? It is largely based on the encounter with God. Moses met God in the burning bush. Moses went up the mountain and was given the law. You go through the great figures in the Bible: Samuel. David. Solomon. Elijah. Josiah. Paul on the road to Damascus. Jesus as God who taught the 12 and anointed them with the Spirit. Jesus raised up men of faith. He taught them faith. There is a sequence in the Gospel of Matthew beginning with the feeding of the 5,000 in chapter 14 in which he tells them, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” The disciples are dumbfounded. So Jesus shows them how it is done. This is followed by Jesus walking on the water and the lesson in faith when Peter joins him on the water and his doubts seize him. “Why did you doubt?” This is followed by Jesus’ criticism of the leaders of the day who “honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Does this not describe our age? From here there is the faith of the Canaanite woman, followed by the feeding of the 4,000.
This whole section is wrapped up by the teaching on the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Jesus wants to draw a very careful distinction between what is supposed to be happening within the Christian community and the rest of religious world of the day:
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
There is clear contrast drawn. What Jesus wants his disciples fixed upon is the power that was operative in the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000. Ours is not a faith based on rules taught by men. Ours is a faith which is rooted in the anointing of God’s Spirit. Ours is a faith meant to be built upon and powered by the same energy which fed the 5,000 and the 4,000. Our leaders fall into a long line of men who were anointed with the Spirit of God. Theirs is the tradition of the wisdom of Solomon. Theirs is the “miracle of law.”
In a recent Twitter space discussion involving members of the Christian Ghetto discussion group in regards to building communities of resistance, we asked the question, “What incentives can we give men, what rewards can we offer them, that the regime cannot?”
One such “reward” is a context in which “agency” and “responsibility” can be cultivated free from “the rules of men” which smothers and chokes out their ability to act. But because we are resisting a metaphysical entity —“The State” which wants to fill the role of both god and religion— which wishes to shove aside and destroy the Christian faith, replacing tradition and faith with technical systems, our response must be fundamentally Christian in nature. This means leaning into fundamentally Christian understandings of “authority” and “anointing.” We tend to look at these concepts mostly through the lens of Christian ministry, especially the pastorate, but it is clear when you look at the full scope of Biblical teaching and the history of the Church that this idea had much wider application. We see derivations in the ideas of “calling” and “vocation,” but these seem to me to be concepts adapted more the bourgeoisie framework, in some ways desacralized, despiritualized. God is there. He gives you task, a vocation, but it is something that everyone has. The idea of “authority” and “anointing” seem more singular. Not everyone has “authority.” Not everyone is “anointed.” As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that the same Spirit may be given to all, but the Spirit is not given to each in the same way. There is a hierarchy of gifting. Not everyone can lead. Not everyone has been given the “miracle of law.”
But, if we are to build a new elite, or better, to allow God to raise up a new elite, we would do well to establish a context in which they can be fostered. Of course God can call leaders out of Babylon, but it would seem a good thing for us to create communities which are deeply immersed in the ontological presence of God from which he can also call men steeped in the ways of the Lord and his Spirit. It would seem that this is a time to be gathering in “the upper room,” so to speak, drawing ourselves close to God in Christ, providing a refuge from the system while learning a new relationship with technology. We must build communities of resistance that can attract and raise up the kind of leaders whom God would anoint. We must build the context for them, because the system is built for and by the managers. It produces managers, not leaders. The goal is to be building new communities of resistance who don’t give the regime easy victories and who can raise up men of exception, men of authority. It will likely be a mix of men. Like David, they likely will not be of one type or even the persons we expect them to be. But God will choose them and anoint them.
It will likely be a collection of local men capable of working together with men of other locales, in a coordinated effort to resist and bring down the regime. It will likely be a decentralized network of communities, because it is technique that allows organization at scale. If we are stepping away from the managerial system we will also be stepping away from its power to organize and harness resources at scale. But that is ok. We know how Jesus fed the 5,000. If we were to use business language, these would be the ultimate disruptive start ups. What more giant enterprise is there to disrupt as a start up than the totality of the administrative system? We need start up communities that can challenge the giant multi-national. In that sense, it is an exciting time. There is much to inspire.
But it is not going to be an easy task. We will be undermanned, underfunded, under resourced. This is overcome by the power of the feeding of the 5000. We need men who are capable of walking on water if the need demands it. We will need elites who will operate at a level not seen in quite some time. They will need a full tool chest of tactics. There will be times of peace and times of war ahead. There will be times to break down and times to build up. There will be times to love and to hate ahead too. As such, NETTR and NFTL are tactics, not policies. And like other tactics they have a time and a place. We have to be strategic and flexible. If we tie one hand behind our backs and reflexively exclude a class of allies because they don’t fit within the current Overton Window, we will hand the regime and its propagandists easy victories. We do their work for them. Part of why we lose today is we are tactically deficient. Today seems like a time for NETTR or NFTL. It is a time for not giving the left, the regime, easy victories.
If we, or our grandchildren, are going to come through this on the other side believing that we, that they have won, whatever victory might look like, we will likely be spending a lot of time walking a razor thin knife’s edge to get there. Walking that edge requires men of consummate skill and ability. Men of exception.
In ex-correctional officer Rory Miller’s book “Conflict Communication,” he has a great section on the difference between managers and leaders. From his view, a leader wishes to solve a problem (and will take responsibility for his success or failure) while a manager wishes to follow the rules of the system (and not take any responsibility). We see the outcomes now where it’s managers all the way down. Standing in the presence of one who speaks with authority and knows how to wield power expertly is invigorating. Our guys just need the chance to build that local authority. It would be helpful to have some steps for would be leaders with authority to learn to maximize their leadership beyond their courage and decisiveness. Lastly, I think the Holy Spirit clearly directs some men for leadership and grants them almost tangible authority. To understand more about the Holy Spirit’s role in the Trinity from a Reformed perspective has been instrumental in my understanding of how God works through us in the world.
Excellent. I can't wait to have you on to discuss this issue.